its gone really quite :- "
The Most Dog Friendly Community Online
Join Dog Forum to Discuss Breeds, Training, Food and More
Electric Shock Collars
- Thread starter rach125
- Start date
- Status
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
No modern Ecollar is capable of causing burns. I'd ask how you know that these injuries were of that nature?flyballcrazy said:
If an Ecollar is left on for too long, if it's on too tightly, or too loosely it can cause sores that develop where the contact points sit against the dog's skin. This is because the circulation is compromised where they apply pressure to the skin. They shouldn't be on for more than 8-10 hours and even then they need to be moved around every couple of hours.
Nothing wrong with that as long as the dog responds to those methods. But some don't. And they still need to recall.flyballcrazy said:
Ecollars are anything but a quick fix. In fact training that's done properly with them occurs faster and lasts longer than anything else that exists in dog training.flyballcrazy said:
Yes I have. The only thing that's different is that most people first feel it at a lower level than they do on their arm or hand.flyballcrazy said:
Why would anyone need to turn it up to that level? I don't.flyballcrazy said:
The Ecollar is an inanimate object. It's neither cruel nor nice. It's only in how it's used that cruelty or humanity reside.flyballcrazy said:
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Kita wrote
Years ago I read of a BC who was a highly trained search and rescue dog, one day while out on a rescue it jumped over a ditch - a sheep jumped up and the dog quickly bit the sheeps throat then carried on with the rescue. That dog was rehomed to a town and was never trusted on the fells again. If the shock collars were so effective then why did they not use one on this dog?
Denis
Because years ago the technology was not developed to manufacture a modern e-collar, the only collars available pre 1998 were limited use collars, they were not suitable or designed for general use, very, very few dog owners had never heard of them and there were much better methods than using one of those collars except when all else had failed. Those collars were called ‘shock collars’ and their category was ‘limited use’, the term shock collar still lingers in the US in the same we occasionally hear the word ‘wireless’, a term used for the first radio’s which had started to use lead acid batteries.
To update you, the first modern e- training collar came off the production line in Tucson AZ in Sept 1998, the Tri Tronics Pro 100, it had taken exactly 40 years of technological development to reach that level of technology. Modern e-collars are split into two categories, limited use collars and full e-training collars.
Several things separate the two categories but a full training collar must have at least 16 levels. In the UK only a small number of modern limited use collars were available until around 2003 when the first 16 level plus became available, now there are lots of choices.
Limited Use, Variable Level, E-Pulse Training Aid Collars.
1988-1998. USA-UK-international
Around the early 1990’s the brothers in law split up and are now Dogtra and DT systems, two different PLC’s. By 1988 they and Tri-Tronics had developed three levels of stimulation for their collars, low, medium and high.
These additional levels took e-collars from specific use to limited use training aids. They could be used with a wider variety of dogs, with little stress. As far as pet owners go they could be used for such exercises as picnic raiding by dogs, barking at children etc, however, the small number of levels and inability to make instant changes still meant limited use only and only vaguely discriminate levels.
Changing levels was clumsy, either the contact points had to be changed on the collars to change levels, which meant the dog had to return to the handler, exercises were better pre-planned. Some use of the low or medium could be used without pre-planning with some dogs, however, if the dog was in drive the sensory narrowing or shut down meant the dog would show no response as the sensation threshold was to high, or the dog could be overwhelmed because it was to low. It was this type of limited use collar that the UK police used, they were left in a drawer and taken out only for pre-planed specific exercises, mainly the "out" in protection dog training.
As the late eighties went into the nineties new manufacturers started to emerge, none of them had the research data or experience of Tri-Tronics, Dogtra or DT Systems. Some manufacturers had designed collars which could change levels by pressing a button, this procedure took many seconds, maybe a minuet, was not reliable at any distance beyond contact between collar and transmitter or a distance of a few feet. There were reliability problems with radio signals not activating the collars, sometimes they did not activate the receiver/collar due to poor cheaper technology or weather conditions.
Some collars based on electro muscle stimulation technology design were being made in Europe but they were far behind the American top three in every aspect.
After the successful introduction of 3 levels by 1988, the three main US PLC’s carried on spending vast amounts on research for anti interference filters, safety cut off filters, the new digital technology, range without external antenna and radio tracking technology for longer ranges and to stop any delay in activating the receiver when the transmitter button was pressed. Tri-Tronics, Dogtra and DT Systems chose to research reliable technology to make instant change multi level optimum quality units.
Collars made by inferior manufacturers with several levels were occasionally seen in UK, they were still rare and used mainly by working gundog users, sheep dog farmers were beginning to use them. These collars were still not remote static training collars, they were all limited use remote static training aid collars and were used for more specific or pre-planed exercises or one specific problem behaviour.
In inexperienced pet owners hands they were not very easy to use but for things such as picnic stealing, they were simple enough and could aid recall with difficult dog. Beyond simple exercises such as that they were not of much use, except the higher level which could be used to stop some chasing behaviours with some dogs and also helped the “Out†in protection training. Although they were of limited use they did have many welfare benefits. The RSPCA monitored some sales by one outlet, namely, Radio Systems, the RSPCA found no detrimental cases.
The benefits for dogs with single problems such as picnic stealing or running and barking at kids/people and many other etc’s should not be underestimated. Such owners found themselves burdened with a dog they did not enjoy, exercise was/is a burden, there was stress at home and over a period of time, dependant on owner, relationships could suffer, dogs could not come off lead and in many cases owners simply put the dogs in rescue or walked it round the block for its lifetime.
The summary of pre-1998 limited use collars was that although they had a place in dog training and benefited hundreds of thousands of dogs world wide the inherent problems which had existed in dog training in all but quite, compliant, dogs, since Neanderthal man first tethered some kind of dog with animal skins, remained.
The technological development since the pre-historic 100,000 and recorded history years preceding 1998 was that the Neanderthal sewn together animal skin noose tethers/leads ( assumed in pre written history ) had been replaced by nylon, treated leather, or rope type leads and a variety of separate collars or head cage haltie types, all of which were used as a remote training aid, in some way. As a consequence billions upon billions of dogs in those 140,000 years were euthensed in some way because of the difficulties and problems inherent in training all but quiet dogs.
The limited use e-collars preceding 1998 played no significant part in resolving these problems they did not have the capability, despite the fact they made life easier for millions of dogs and saved the lives of millions of others those numbers are insignificant on a global scale and because of the shortcomings and difficulties of use the pre 1998 collars would have remained a rarely used collar whose use would only have been rarely seen with anyone other than those with a training background.
However, the research and technological development, which had come from reinvestment of profits, was about to change that for all time, not least important was when Tri Tronics changed from the problematic analogue technology to digital, in 1992.
Six years later, in 1998, Tri-Tronics made the greatest leap in remote technology, which overcame all training problems, which had existed for the preceding 100,000 years.
This leap would improve the quality of life and save the lives of billions of dogs world wide on a permanent basis and change dog training for all time
Ref
Ch 4 updated 2006.-Remote Electronic Training Collars. Fifty years of UK history, from electric shock to a sensation Second Edition, E-Collars, Historical Clarification, from electric shock to a sensation, 1950s - 2006.
Years ago I read of a BC who was a highly trained search and rescue dog, one day while out on a rescue it jumped over a ditch - a sheep jumped up and the dog quickly bit the sheeps throat then carried on with the rescue. That dog was rehomed to a town and was never trusted on the fells again. If the shock collars were so effective then why did they not use one on this dog?
Denis
Because years ago the technology was not developed to manufacture a modern e-collar, the only collars available pre 1998 were limited use collars, they were not suitable or designed for general use, very, very few dog owners had never heard of them and there were much better methods than using one of those collars except when all else had failed. Those collars were called ‘shock collars’ and their category was ‘limited use’, the term shock collar still lingers in the US in the same we occasionally hear the word ‘wireless’, a term used for the first radio’s which had started to use lead acid batteries.
To update you, the first modern e- training collar came off the production line in Tucson AZ in Sept 1998, the Tri Tronics Pro 100, it had taken exactly 40 years of technological development to reach that level of technology. Modern e-collars are split into two categories, limited use collars and full e-training collars.
Several things separate the two categories but a full training collar must have at least 16 levels. In the UK only a small number of modern limited use collars were available until around 2003 when the first 16 level plus became available, now there are lots of choices.
Limited Use, Variable Level, E-Pulse Training Aid Collars.
1988-1998. USA-UK-international
Around the early 1990’s the brothers in law split up and are now Dogtra and DT systems, two different PLC’s. By 1988 they and Tri-Tronics had developed three levels of stimulation for their collars, low, medium and high.
These additional levels took e-collars from specific use to limited use training aids. They could be used with a wider variety of dogs, with little stress. As far as pet owners go they could be used for such exercises as picnic raiding by dogs, barking at children etc, however, the small number of levels and inability to make instant changes still meant limited use only and only vaguely discriminate levels.
Changing levels was clumsy, either the contact points had to be changed on the collars to change levels, which meant the dog had to return to the handler, exercises were better pre-planned. Some use of the low or medium could be used without pre-planning with some dogs, however, if the dog was in drive the sensory narrowing or shut down meant the dog would show no response as the sensation threshold was to high, or the dog could be overwhelmed because it was to low. It was this type of limited use collar that the UK police used, they were left in a drawer and taken out only for pre-planed specific exercises, mainly the "out" in protection dog training.
As the late eighties went into the nineties new manufacturers started to emerge, none of them had the research data or experience of Tri-Tronics, Dogtra or DT Systems. Some manufacturers had designed collars which could change levels by pressing a button, this procedure took many seconds, maybe a minuet, was not reliable at any distance beyond contact between collar and transmitter or a distance of a few feet. There were reliability problems with radio signals not activating the collars, sometimes they did not activate the receiver/collar due to poor cheaper technology or weather conditions.
Some collars based on electro muscle stimulation technology design were being made in Europe but they were far behind the American top three in every aspect.
After the successful introduction of 3 levels by 1988, the three main US PLC’s carried on spending vast amounts on research for anti interference filters, safety cut off filters, the new digital technology, range without external antenna and radio tracking technology for longer ranges and to stop any delay in activating the receiver when the transmitter button was pressed. Tri-Tronics, Dogtra and DT Systems chose to research reliable technology to make instant change multi level optimum quality units.
Collars made by inferior manufacturers with several levels were occasionally seen in UK, they were still rare and used mainly by working gundog users, sheep dog farmers were beginning to use them. These collars were still not remote static training collars, they were all limited use remote static training aid collars and were used for more specific or pre-planed exercises or one specific problem behaviour.
In inexperienced pet owners hands they were not very easy to use but for things such as picnic stealing, they were simple enough and could aid recall with difficult dog. Beyond simple exercises such as that they were not of much use, except the higher level which could be used to stop some chasing behaviours with some dogs and also helped the “Out†in protection training. Although they were of limited use they did have many welfare benefits. The RSPCA monitored some sales by one outlet, namely, Radio Systems, the RSPCA found no detrimental cases.
The benefits for dogs with single problems such as picnic stealing or running and barking at kids/people and many other etc’s should not be underestimated. Such owners found themselves burdened with a dog they did not enjoy, exercise was/is a burden, there was stress at home and over a period of time, dependant on owner, relationships could suffer, dogs could not come off lead and in many cases owners simply put the dogs in rescue or walked it round the block for its lifetime.
The summary of pre-1998 limited use collars was that although they had a place in dog training and benefited hundreds of thousands of dogs world wide the inherent problems which had existed in dog training in all but quite, compliant, dogs, since Neanderthal man first tethered some kind of dog with animal skins, remained.
The technological development since the pre-historic 100,000 and recorded history years preceding 1998 was that the Neanderthal sewn together animal skin noose tethers/leads ( assumed in pre written history ) had been replaced by nylon, treated leather, or rope type leads and a variety of separate collars or head cage haltie types, all of which were used as a remote training aid, in some way. As a consequence billions upon billions of dogs in those 140,000 years were euthensed in some way because of the difficulties and problems inherent in training all but quiet dogs.
The limited use e-collars preceding 1998 played no significant part in resolving these problems they did not have the capability, despite the fact they made life easier for millions of dogs and saved the lives of millions of others those numbers are insignificant on a global scale and because of the shortcomings and difficulties of use the pre 1998 collars would have remained a rarely used collar whose use would only have been rarely seen with anyone other than those with a training background.
However, the research and technological development, which had come from reinvestment of profits, was about to change that for all time, not least important was when Tri Tronics changed from the problematic analogue technology to digital, in 1992.
Six years later, in 1998, Tri-Tronics made the greatest leap in remote technology, which overcame all training problems, which had existed for the preceding 100,000 years.
This leap would improve the quality of life and save the lives of billions of dogs world wide on a permanent basis and change dog training for all time
Ref
Ch 4 updated 2006.-Remote Electronic Training Collars. Fifty years of UK history, from electric shock to a sensation Second Edition, E-Collars, Historical Clarification, from electric shock to a sensation, 1950s - 2006.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Mally asked a question in response to Kita
Have YOU ever used an electric collar. If not who are you to judge??
Denis
Kita, Mally asked 2 very easy to understand questions, I have looked through here and I have not found an answer to either question. Can you please reply to Mallys questions, I would like to know the answers as well.
Have YOU ever used an electric collar. If not who are you to judge??
Denis
Kita, Mally asked 2 very easy to understand questions, I have looked through here and I have not found an answer to either question. Can you please reply to Mallys questions, I would like to know the answers as well.
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Here's the short version of how I do it. The first thing that's done is to find the level at which the dog first feels the stim. Next a retractable leash is used and the dog wanders out to the end of it. I press the button and pull him towards me. As soon as he's taken the first few steps towards me, I release the button. This is repeated until the dog comes and stands by me because "out there" is uncomfortable.FeeFee said:
Next I start walking away from the dog. I press the button for a second or two until the dog walks with me. As soon as he takes the first step to move with me, I release the button. After a few of these, I introduce the here command. The full protocol can be seen at
http://loucastle.com/recall.htm
It isn't. An Ecollar used, as I advocate, emits 0.000005 Joules. (Joules are an expression of power. They're just used for purposes of comparison). An abdominal energizer, one of those passive stomach exercisers, emits 0.914 joules, almost 183,000 times more powerful. An electric fence charger emits 3.2 Joules, 640,000 times more powerful. A defibrillator emits 360 Joules, 72,000,000 times more powerful. Ecollars are best used where the dog first feels the stim at the lowest levels.FeeFee said:
I've walked into them a few times myself. My reaction was the same as that of your dogs.FeeFee said:
It's not a good example because of the monstrously high level of stim, but it does show how long lasting training that uses electrical shock can be.FeeFee said:
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Rach125 [original post questions]
Hi, i was just wondering if anyone has used/seen used/
Mattie Jun 14 2007, 02:11 P3 – Wrote 479 words.
Denis
I notice Mattie, in your 479 word post, you did not make any mention of ever using an e-collar, neither did you mention any kind of practical experience involving an e-collar [ requested by Rach125].
Am I correct in thinking you know absolutely nothing at all about e-collars? If I am incorrect can you please state which make, model, year of manufacture of any collar you used, what circumstances [ i.e. why] and some brief details of the methods you used, including how you began using it.
If I am correct and you have no practical experience etc what is the point of your 479 word post in relation to the original posters questions above?
Hi, i was just wondering if anyone has used/seen used/
Mattie Jun 14 2007, 02:11 P3 – Wrote 479 words.
Denis
I notice Mattie, in your 479 word post, you did not make any mention of ever using an e-collar, neither did you mention any kind of practical experience involving an e-collar [ requested by Rach125].
Am I correct in thinking you know absolutely nothing at all about e-collars? If I am incorrect can you please state which make, model, year of manufacture of any collar you used, what circumstances [ i.e. why] and some brief details of the methods you used, including how you began using it.
If I am correct and you have no practical experience etc what is the point of your 479 word post in relation to the original posters questions above?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 1,320
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I was not suggesting anyone should try and train either dog or child by harsh treatment but there is a need for discipline and control, neither my dogs or my daughter are afraid but they are well mannered and respectful.midlanderkeith said:
I have just finished a thesis comparing the children and dogs of our present society with those of ageneration ago and the present does not compare favourably!!! Have you ever noticed that families with unruly undisciplined children have badly behaved dogs.
Fear is a perfectly natural emotion, its what stops us driving the wrong way down the motorway, its what gets us up to go to work, its what stops us doing everything that may cause us harm
A dog will will perform the behaviour that it feels is in its best intersts at any particular time, its how it learns. Studying my own pack in simple terms the top dog is respected by the others, if they try to steal food for example then retribution is swift and leaves no confusion. its over quickly, it hurts and is not repeated.
In the case of the chase by an instintive hunter such as the whippet his motivation is the chase and kill its what he loves best, to change this the dog must have something which motivates him more than this and food and reward will not work.
To the dog a click and a piece of liver is far less rewarding than the thrill of a chase and believe me ive tried. You may be able to recall 100 times successfully when the dog has no greater motivation or when he is close to you but when that rabbit or deer pops up and runs then food forget it.
This is just my opinion and im sure you trainers out there will disagree, i am more than willing to try any other methods so ideas appreciated :cheers: Jan
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
That's quite an enlightened view of "fear" and how it affects animals (us included). When most people talk about fear involving dog training they're badmouthing those who use corrections, no matter what the source, and trying to get people to believe that our dogs cringe or run in fear of us or of the corrections.jayp said:
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Probably "respect for the consequences" is a better term and it doesn’t frighten people which is sometimes a goal of those who don't like or understand corrections.
- Messages
- 4,751
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
Great info, 
but back to the OP, is there a place to keep such collars on dogs in kennel situation? I would have thought that e-collar would be put on only during training? Also the question is are these boarding kennels or breeding kennels?
Another thing that occured to me, are these collars actually collars that zap the dog, or is the property electronicly protected and the dogs collars set of ultrasonic (?) sound if the dogs come too near to the fence? Maybe some of these dogs are climbers?
but back to the OP, is there a place to keep such collars on dogs in kennel situation? I would have thought that e-collar would be put on only during training? Also the question is are these boarding kennels or breeding kennels?Another thing that occured to me, are these collars actually collars that zap the dog, or is the property electronicly protected and the dogs collars set of ultrasonic (?) sound if the dogs come too near to the fence? Maybe some of these dogs are climbers?
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Seraphina
but back to the OP, is there a place to keep such collars on dogs in kennel situation?
Denis
I don’t understand what for or why the kennel is using them – personally I am quite sceptical as to what they are doing with them but there is no information beyond they use them for something.
Seraphina
I would have thought that e-collar would be put on only during training?
Denis
It depends on the owners day by day environmental circumstances and their dog. Most e- collars have two purposes some have 3, they are not just a training aid as most people think –
1. A training aid.
2. A fail safe device for use in many emergency throughout any dogs lifetime.
3. A lost/out of sight dog recovery system to a maximum range of two miles and under severely poor environmental conditions [ weather, metallic rock, scrub etc] around ¾ of a mile.
but back to the OP, is there a place to keep such collars on dogs in kennel situation?
Denis
I don’t understand what for or why the kennel is using them – personally I am quite sceptical as to what they are doing with them but there is no information beyond they use them for something.
Seraphina
I would have thought that e-collar would be put on only during training?
Denis
It depends on the owners day by day environmental circumstances and their dog. Most e- collars have two purposes some have 3, they are not just a training aid as most people think –
1. A training aid.
2. A fail safe device for use in many emergency throughout any dogs lifetime.
3. A lost/out of sight dog recovery system to a maximum range of two miles and under severely poor environmental conditions [ weather, metallic rock, scrub etc] around ¾ of a mile.
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
FeeFee Jun 13 2007, 08:41 PM
FeeFee - The Kennel Club's view on shock collars:
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1236/23/5/3
Denis Carthy - My view of the Kennel Club
http://www.freewebs.com/dogwelfare/apdtwom...eextremists.htm
FeeFee -The Dogs Trust View:
http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/information/po...ollars/text.htm
Denis Carthy - My view of The Dogs Trust
http://www.freewebs.com/dencarth/dogstrust...ovekickings.htm
FeeFee - The APDT's stance:
http://www.apdt.co.uk/press.htm
Denis Carthy - APDT users stance
http://www.freewebs.com/dogwelfare/apbckilldog.htm
FeeFee
I could go on - the point being that I can't find one single reputable dog organisation or individual trainer who doesn't want these things banned.
Denis
I could go on - the point being that I can't find one single reputable dog organisation or individual trainer who you have quoted which should not be banned itself.
FeeFee -Gwen Bailey's view:
http://www.dogbehaviour.com/articles/dogs/shockcollars.htm
Denis Carthy's view of Gwen Bailey’s methods
APDT News Release.
The unregistered Association of Proven Dog Trainers condemns the widespread use of delivering up treats to dogs for the claimed purpose of training dogs, which cause behavioural problems requring the services of the quick fix quack, or behaviourist as quacks are more commonly known.
Their potential for accidental or absent minded misuse is high, stimulating dangerous dog misbehaviour patterns by means of the positive reinforcement of existing bad and dangerous habits and causing new bad habits.
They could easily cause considerable chronic behaviour problems including aggression, e.g the dog shows aggression to another dog, you try to distract it with a treat and so it will become aggressive in order to get a treat, frightening strangers by running up to them begging for something the stranger might be eating, catastrophic unreliable recall if something more interesting attracts it or failure to carry out an emergency down, resulting in road accidents or being hit by a bicycle, skaters or surfboarders in the park, causing unnecessary pain and distress to the humans involved as well as the dog, if it survives, and making owners liable for a fine for having a dangerous dog out of control.
A dog experiencing a pleasant treat out of the blue as a reward for the cessation of barking and other unwanted behaviours will associate the barking with being rewarded by a treat for barking. Once it stops barking and is given the treat it will associate the treat with the barking the dog was focusing on at the time, it will then start barking again for more treats, owners will have a noise abatement order placed on them and the dog goes into rescue with owners being fined up to £5000 first offence, £500 per day for every offence after, for life, a criminal record and maybe an ASBO.
The unregistered Association of Proven Dog Trainers condemns charging money and exploiting pet dog owners by telling them they can get a reliable recall with a treat. Pet dog owners can go to the local park and learn how to do this by watching people feeding ducks and squirrels, as free information to learn the same as follows:
Go to the park with some bread and dog whistle, wait until you see some ducks near you, blow the dog whistle and throw the bread towards the dicks at the same time, they will come and eat the bread, hold some more out in front of you get them to come close, just prior to releasing the piece of bread to one of the ducks blow the dog whistle softly and let it have the bread, you can use a clicker as well as or as an option to the whistle if you want to.
Repeat this for three successive days and the ducks will come to you to get the bread when you blow the whistle or click the cicker, at Xmas grab the censored and have it for Xmas dinner. You can do the same with squirrels, birds in the garden and mice in the house, no need for expensive one to one ‘behaviourist’ visits costing around £100 per visit or training classes or training classes which teach you the same thing.
What pet owners must remember is that the mice are not coming to you they are coming ‘to the food’ the same applies to your dog which is why it will not reliably recall to ‘you’ except when nothing else interests it.
When treats are used correctly or incorrectly, the dog will associate other things which were around at the time it gets the treat, things such as children. This will make it bark at children because children were present when it was given the treat when its barking stopped and it will frighten or bite them, it could bark at a stranger to get a treat who then kicks it as a result, at a sheep if a sheep was close when it was given a treat for stopping barking at them and then gets shot. If it does not get shot then the dog owner is breaking the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act and the dog will be put to sleep.
In inexperienced or experienced hands treats may take many years of repetitions of administrations of the treat before the rewarding of bad behaviour is finally associated with the unwanted behaviour. It then takes several seconds before the dog learns he has taught the owner to habitually give him treats after any bad behaviour, only then will he stop barking and start another unwanted behaviour to get a treat, he has then learned that any bad behaviour gets him a treat, he has effectively been trained to misbehave by being rewarded for misbehaviour.
Not only is this inhumane because he will get fat, suffer veterinary problems and die young, but it can set up a series of intolerable behaviours which can cause associated behaviour problems in future, his owners get fed up and he is put into rescue.
Unsophisticated methods of rewarding dogs when bad behaviour ceases, such as destroying the furniture, stopping the destruction and then getting a treat reinforces the bad behaviour with a high probability it will recur, the dog associates the two actions of (1) chewing furniture (2) then stopping and getting a treat, so it will chew furniture to get a treat. Unsophisticated methods such as giving treats are not necessary in order to train them to behave appropriately, treats are useful for feeding ducks in the park as novelty way of getting them to come, especially for Xmas dinner.
Such methods are often used as a quick fix by the inexperienced, the inept and charlatans calling themselves behaviourists. Humane, stress free methods which rely on a sound understanding of the dog's mind are more effective for training or bringing about a lasting cure for behaviour problems.
If the dog learns fast because of quality, humane and stress free methods for the dog, free from the risk of side effects and which improves rather than spoils the relationship between dog and owner. In the long run, will result in a happy, confident dog and satisfied owner and offer the dog the freedom within safety it must have.
Only in a handful of cases, where all else has been tried and failed, and when the condition is potentially life-threatening, can the use of treats which cause life threatening out of control behaviour and which account for more dogs in rescues than ever before, for reasons such as “Owner cannot cope with dogâ€, ever be justified, and, only then, in the hands of an experienced trainer who is capable of accurate timing.
Owners of problem pets need to be made aware that the unwanted behaviour can be altered with understanding and advice and that a 'quick fix' approach – ‘give it a treat’ - methods of reward can do more harm than good.
Denis Carthy APDT [ Association of Proven Dog Trainers.]
DwenCailey©02004.
For an alternative view go to the following link for Gwen Bailey's twaddle below
http://www.takingthelead.co.uk/5/shock_collars.htm
FeeFee - The Kennel Club's view on shock collars:
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1236/23/5/3
Denis Carthy - My view of the Kennel Club
http://www.freewebs.com/dogwelfare/apdtwom...eextremists.htm
FeeFee -The Dogs Trust View:
http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/information/po...ollars/text.htm
Denis Carthy - My view of The Dogs Trust
http://www.freewebs.com/dencarth/dogstrust...ovekickings.htm
FeeFee - The APDT's stance:
http://www.apdt.co.uk/press.htm
Denis Carthy - APDT users stance
http://www.freewebs.com/dogwelfare/apbckilldog.htm
FeeFee
I could go on - the point being that I can't find one single reputable dog organisation or individual trainer who doesn't want these things banned.
Denis
I could go on - the point being that I can't find one single reputable dog organisation or individual trainer who you have quoted which should not be banned itself.
FeeFee -Gwen Bailey's view:
http://www.dogbehaviour.com/articles/dogs/shockcollars.htm
Denis Carthy's view of Gwen Bailey’s methods
APDT News Release.
The unregistered Association of Proven Dog Trainers condemns the widespread use of delivering up treats to dogs for the claimed purpose of training dogs, which cause behavioural problems requring the services of the quick fix quack, or behaviourist as quacks are more commonly known.
Their potential for accidental or absent minded misuse is high, stimulating dangerous dog misbehaviour patterns by means of the positive reinforcement of existing bad and dangerous habits and causing new bad habits.
They could easily cause considerable chronic behaviour problems including aggression, e.g the dog shows aggression to another dog, you try to distract it with a treat and so it will become aggressive in order to get a treat, frightening strangers by running up to them begging for something the stranger might be eating, catastrophic unreliable recall if something more interesting attracts it or failure to carry out an emergency down, resulting in road accidents or being hit by a bicycle, skaters or surfboarders in the park, causing unnecessary pain and distress to the humans involved as well as the dog, if it survives, and making owners liable for a fine for having a dangerous dog out of control.
A dog experiencing a pleasant treat out of the blue as a reward for the cessation of barking and other unwanted behaviours will associate the barking with being rewarded by a treat for barking. Once it stops barking and is given the treat it will associate the treat with the barking the dog was focusing on at the time, it will then start barking again for more treats, owners will have a noise abatement order placed on them and the dog goes into rescue with owners being fined up to £5000 first offence, £500 per day for every offence after, for life, a criminal record and maybe an ASBO.
The unregistered Association of Proven Dog Trainers condemns charging money and exploiting pet dog owners by telling them they can get a reliable recall with a treat. Pet dog owners can go to the local park and learn how to do this by watching people feeding ducks and squirrels, as free information to learn the same as follows:
Go to the park with some bread and dog whistle, wait until you see some ducks near you, blow the dog whistle and throw the bread towards the dicks at the same time, they will come and eat the bread, hold some more out in front of you get them to come close, just prior to releasing the piece of bread to one of the ducks blow the dog whistle softly and let it have the bread, you can use a clicker as well as or as an option to the whistle if you want to.
Repeat this for three successive days and the ducks will come to you to get the bread when you blow the whistle or click the cicker, at Xmas grab the censored and have it for Xmas dinner. You can do the same with squirrels, birds in the garden and mice in the house, no need for expensive one to one ‘behaviourist’ visits costing around £100 per visit or training classes or training classes which teach you the same thing.
What pet owners must remember is that the mice are not coming to you they are coming ‘to the food’ the same applies to your dog which is why it will not reliably recall to ‘you’ except when nothing else interests it.
When treats are used correctly or incorrectly, the dog will associate other things which were around at the time it gets the treat, things such as children. This will make it bark at children because children were present when it was given the treat when its barking stopped and it will frighten or bite them, it could bark at a stranger to get a treat who then kicks it as a result, at a sheep if a sheep was close when it was given a treat for stopping barking at them and then gets shot. If it does not get shot then the dog owner is breaking the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act and the dog will be put to sleep.
In inexperienced or experienced hands treats may take many years of repetitions of administrations of the treat before the rewarding of bad behaviour is finally associated with the unwanted behaviour. It then takes several seconds before the dog learns he has taught the owner to habitually give him treats after any bad behaviour, only then will he stop barking and start another unwanted behaviour to get a treat, he has then learned that any bad behaviour gets him a treat, he has effectively been trained to misbehave by being rewarded for misbehaviour.
Not only is this inhumane because he will get fat, suffer veterinary problems and die young, but it can set up a series of intolerable behaviours which can cause associated behaviour problems in future, his owners get fed up and he is put into rescue.
Unsophisticated methods of rewarding dogs when bad behaviour ceases, such as destroying the furniture, stopping the destruction and then getting a treat reinforces the bad behaviour with a high probability it will recur, the dog associates the two actions of (1) chewing furniture (2) then stopping and getting a treat, so it will chew furniture to get a treat. Unsophisticated methods such as giving treats are not necessary in order to train them to behave appropriately, treats are useful for feeding ducks in the park as novelty way of getting them to come, especially for Xmas dinner.
Such methods are often used as a quick fix by the inexperienced, the inept and charlatans calling themselves behaviourists. Humane, stress free methods which rely on a sound understanding of the dog's mind are more effective for training or bringing about a lasting cure for behaviour problems.
If the dog learns fast because of quality, humane and stress free methods for the dog, free from the risk of side effects and which improves rather than spoils the relationship between dog and owner. In the long run, will result in a happy, confident dog and satisfied owner and offer the dog the freedom within safety it must have.
Only in a handful of cases, where all else has been tried and failed, and when the condition is potentially life-threatening, can the use of treats which cause life threatening out of control behaviour and which account for more dogs in rescues than ever before, for reasons such as “Owner cannot cope with dogâ€, ever be justified, and, only then, in the hands of an experienced trainer who is capable of accurate timing.
Owners of problem pets need to be made aware that the unwanted behaviour can be altered with understanding and advice and that a 'quick fix' approach – ‘give it a treat’ - methods of reward can do more harm than good.
Denis Carthy APDT [ Association of Proven Dog Trainers.]
DwenCailey©02004.
For an alternative view go to the following link for Gwen Bailey's twaddle below
http://www.takingthelead.co.uk/5/shock_collars.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
FeeFee - The Kennel Club's view on shock collars:
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1236/23/5/3
Denis Carthy - My view of the Kennel Club
http://www.freewebs.com/dogvitalinfo/
My apologies for my first attempt, I put the wrong link, this is the right one, just click the KC tab on the menu.
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1236/23/5/3
Denis Carthy - My view of the Kennel Club
http://www.freewebs.com/dogvitalinfo/
My apologies for my first attempt, I put the wrong link, this is the right one, just click the KC tab on the menu.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I'm not sure why you think that using bark collars on the dogs in a kennel situation is wrong. I know of a few kennel operations that do this as a matter of course. In that situation dogs rarely get any rest. One dog will bark and then all the rest will start. Then they'll quiet down until another one barks.IanGerman said:
But if you put bark collars on them they don't do this cyclic barking thing. Dogs come home much more rested.
Can you tell us why you think this "has to be wrong?"
Denis Carthy said:
Hi Denis,
Hi Lou
I wondered how long it would take you 2 to get here
I couldn't reply Denis because I haven't been able to get on this board since I posted that day and now I can't find my post.
Excuse me if I don't read all your posts again, I have read them too many times on another board. :cheers:
One of my dogs Joe, was beaten for (not) coming back before I got him, he was beaten so much that he was terrified if he got free. He would come so far back but not right back, then drop to the floor shaking in fear, I hope I never see eyes like that again in any animal. Finding something that would mean that Joe could come back to me in safety took me nearly 4 years, everything I tried would work once but never again, the fear was too instilled in him.
Eventually someone told me to try a clicker if I thought it hadn't been used before with him. Within 7 days Joe was 90% reliable on recall, within 10 days he was 99% reliable.
I have that book, it was bought for me when I was a child. Barbara Woodhouse did do a good job with these ponies but they were taught to neck rein so the mouth was never touched. Horses that have been taught to neck rein also learn how to obey the weight changes of the rider so the use of the bit is obsolete. All my horses have been taught to neck rein for hacking out, and all could do a decent dressage test but they are 2 different methods.
This does show that what can seem cruel need not be, but a pelham used normally and not abused isn't cruel, it is how the rider uses the reins that can be cruel.
I have a foster dog here who's voice box is damaged and I suspect this has been done by her being allowed to pull on a flat collar. I walk her in a trail/trackin harness and she doesn't pull in that but she does if the lead is clipped to her collar.
Even a dog with a poor recall doesn't need to run across a road and cause an accident if the owner takes the dog to a well fenced area were the dog can run but not get out. Even a dog with a good recall I would never let off lead if a road was close enough for my dog to run across
Nothing to stop them running if the owner takes them to a secure place so they can run in safety. I have an ex racing Greyhound that won't move away from me if I take the lead off, have an extending lead on and he will explore the undergrowth etc. He will run in my back garden and to him that is all he wants to do. Not all dogs want to run even sighthounds.
It doesn't matter if dogs are working dogs or like mine, pets, a good recall is essential but it doesn't worry me if my dogs decide to take the Michael for some reason or other, they are just having fun. I do agree that dogs shouldn't disappear for and the owners not doing anything. I know a dog that is lucky to be alive because of this, he ran a different way, saw a dog on the other side of the road and was hit by a vehicle. This dog had a broken pelvis that took quite some time to heal.
This isn't just a sighthound problem it is all dogs. Far too many dogs are out of control when out and the owners just watch them, many are also aggressive to other dogs and will attack them. A good recall is essential but it doesn't embarrass me if things go wrong. I have seen to many people get embarrassed when out with their dogs and take it out on their dogs by giving them a good beating. If we don't feel embarassment but try to make sure it doesn't happen again, it has a much better effect.
My local kennels use aromatheropy to stop dogs barking when in kennels and it works. Dogs bark because they are stressed, take that stress away with aromatheropy and the barking stops.
There is nothing better than a good, well maintained hedge, wall or fence to keep stock in and to me it is preferable than the electric fences. With these fences the animal has a choice to go and touch it or not, with an e collar it doesn't, the handler has the choice not the dog. With someone experienced and a good trainer this doesn't matter, but often people using these have bad timing and if they think it hasn't worked will turn up the power to really punish the dog. This is what happened with the GSD that I know about and had to be pts.
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
That's great. Glad it worked for you with this dog. It doesn't work with all dogs. I've never had an Ecollar fail to get a good recall and I've worked with over 2,000 dogs.Mattie said:
And such is the case with the Ecollar and many other tools as well.Mattie said:
If you and the dog can get in, the dog can get out. If there's a gate, the dog can get out when someone else opens it. Keeping a dog on a leash for its entire life is not a good plan and doesn't replace teaching a reliable recall. Leashes break. They get pulled out of people's hands. Dog slip out of their collars and harnesses if they're not adjusted properly. When those things occur a dog that does not have a good recall is at risk.Mattie said:
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I think it's important for dogs to obey commands for several reasons. One is that if they don't, they learn that they can do as they please anytime they're off leash. It only takes a few times disobeying for a dog to realize that he doesn't have to. If he's headed towards a busy road when he does this, it could be fatal. One advantage the Ecollar has is that the dog can be reminded if he chooses to disobey at any distance up to the range of the Ecollar. With some models that's 2 miles. But I think in the UK these devices are limited to shorter distances.Mattie said:
I don't think that "embarrassment" is very important. A dog not recalling may be at risk for his life.Mattie said:
I'm quite sure that it doesn't work with all the dogs for the reasons stated below.Mattie said:
Dogs bark for many reasons other than stress. Sometimes it's communication. Sometimes they hear a strange noise. Sometimes they are behind a fence and they see a dog on the other side of the fence. Sometimes they are defending their turf. Sometimes they're just bored and are hoping for a response from another dog. Sometimes they've inadvertently been trained that barking brings their owner home. Aromatherapy may reduce stress but it won't stop all these reasons that dogs bark.Mattie said:
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Sometimes property lines change overnight and it takes a long time for hedges to grow well enough so that they will keep stock in. And they require much more care than an Efence.Mattie said:
The handler is the one that's in charge of the dog, not the other way round. If the dog doesn't want to get stimmed all he has to do is to obey. It's only minor discomfort anyway.Mattie said:
Those people need to be educated. In any case, they'll soon find that it has the opposite effect and will stop.Mattie said:
- Status
Welcome to Dog Forum!
Join our vibrant online community dedicated to all things canine. Whether you're a seasoned owner or new to the world of dogs, our forum is your go-to hub for sharing stories, seeking advice, and connecting with fellow dog lovers. From training tips to health concerns, we cover it all. Register now and unleash the full potential of your dog-loving experience!
Login or Register